from the this-is-not-the-cloud-we're-looking-for dept

While it wasn't always called "the cloud" people have been talking about and predicting the future of remote computing for the past few decades (and, sure, I know that in the early days of mainframes and terminals, that's how things worked, but I'm talking about in the modern internet era). And some argue that we've now finally reached the true age of the cloud. After all, tons of people can survive with most of their documents really stored in the cloud. Indeed, for many people, they have little use for much storage on their own computers (and, sure, I know some of you will get snooty and talk about how crazy that is, but the simple fact is that many people are not like you and don't need much in the way of local storage).

But, as I've said before, and will say again, I think by letting companies like Google and Amazon control "the cloud" we've actually missed out the real possible benefit of the cloud. The version that I had always pictured separated out the storage layer from the service layer. I've made this point in the past concerning online cloud music services (which are now pretty obsolete due to streaming services) where I'd prefer the ability to store all of my (legal) MP3s in one spot, and then point a music playing service at those files. Instead, every cloud music service required you to upload local tracks to servers somewhere, and you'd have to do it all over again if you switched. This is obvious lock-in for those services, but it's a pain for end users, and diminishes the possibilities for more innovative services.

The same is true in other areas as well. And I'm reminded of this due to a bug in Google Docs that hit some people earlier this week. When people went to access their docs, they were told they were locked out due to a "terms of service violation." This turned out not to be true (Google just fucked up in a way that "incorrectly flagged a small percentage of Google Docs as abusive, which caused those documents to be automatically blocked"). And, while this was a stupid mistake (that legitimately freaked out a bunch of people who rely on Google docs), it again highlights the problem.

Google Docs is a fantastic and useful service. But it would be a hell of a lot better if the service layer and the storage layer were separated. In the bad old days when I used Microsoft Word, I wouldn't want that app shutting down because it thought someone wrote an "abusive" letter. Why should that even be an option in Google Docs? And why should Google run both the service and the storage part? Why can't I store the doc somewhere else, and just point Google Docs to that storage, such that I can still get the same service, but Google has no right to deny me access to the documents I make?

Again, I understand the business logic behind this (lock-in!) and even some of the legal logic behind this (for example, in my music example, I'm sure that some would argue that a service playing from an accessible data store of (even legal) MP3s would infringe). But, out of all that, it feels like we've really missed out on the true promise of the cloud, in which we separate out the services from the data, and allow more and varied services to compete, without also claiming ownership and having the ability to block access to the data. This SNAFU with Google Docs only serves as another reminder of how problematic this can be.

from the the-free-market-is-at-the-service-level dept

The creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, has now spoken out strongly in favor of net neutrality in an interview with the Washington Post. The headline and much of the attention are going to his quip that what the big broadband providers are doing is a form of "bribery" in trying to set up toll booths to reach their users. And that is, indeed, the money quote, but it's not the most interesting part of what he's really saying. It's in the context that he gets to that, where he's countering the bogus arguments from folks who insist that we don't need net neutrality rules because that would mess with "the free market." That's wrong for a whole number of reasons that we've discussed previously, but Berners-Lee points out that to have a free market, you do need some basic accepted rules, and that's where some basic regulations are useful: regulations to keep the market free and open. And that's true of most "free markets."

"A lot of congressmen say, 'Well, sign up for the free market' and feel that it's just something you should leave to go by itself," said Berners-Lee. "Well yeah, the market works well so long as nobody prints money. So we have rules, okay? You don't steal stuff, for example. The U.S. dollar is something that everyone relies on. So the government keeps the dollar a stable thing, nobody steals stuff, and then you can rely on the free market."

In other words, in most cases, you do need some basic rules in place to make sure the free market is functioning fairly. It's why most free market supporters recognize that there's some sort of government role in preventing monopolies or fraud -- situations where the free market can break down. And that is what net neutrality rules would do. That's why free market supporters should be totally on board with net neutrality as well: because it's about making sure that there is a real free market for internet services that are above the infrastructure level.

This is why we find it so frustrating that the big broadband players and those who attack net neutrality as "regulating the internet" keep conflating internet infrastructure with internet services. They're doing it on purpose, of course. But net neutrality is really just about making sure that there is a free market for internet services by making sure that the big broadband providers, who represent terminating monopolies, can't abuse that position to break the free market. Because if that happens, it harms everyone. As Berners-Lee absolutely recognizes, hence his comment about bribery:

"We need rules," said Berners-Lee. "If businesses are to move here and start here rather than start in Europe or Brazil or Australia — they're going to look around and make sure, 'Oh, does the power stay up?' And they'll look for other things. "Is the Internet open?' Will they have to effectively bribe their ISPs to start a new service? That's what it looks like from the outside. It's bribery."

You have rules against bribery. You have rules against fraud. You have rules against abusive monopolies. That's to keep the free market functioning. And that's all net neutrality is. It's a way to keep the underlying infrastructure players from totally mucking up the free market in internet services. It's great that Berners-Lee gets this, but it boggles my mind that so-called free marketers still have trouble with this.

Again, none of this is to say that reclassifying under Title II is a perfect solution. It's not. There are risks involved, and there are some legitimate concerns. But compared to all the other options out there (short of Congress getting a clue, which isn't a particularly realistic option), it appears to be the best possible solution. Again, rather than "regulating the internet," it's really just setting the rules to keep the internet a free market.

from the $30/month-for-a-piece-of-worthless-paper dept

As Comcast continues to push for a dominating hold on the American cable market, it seems completely oblivious to the fact that it is historically one of the worst companies in the nation in terms of customer service. The Consumerist has bestowed its "Worst Company in America" award on the cable company more than once, and the internet is littered with Comcast customer service horror stories. According to Comcast, people who may oppose its proposed merger with Time Warner aren't expressing genuine consternation that a rude behemoth might get bigger and ruder, they're just being "ignorant" and "unreasonable."

Well, two recent stories collected by the Consumerist website detail both ignorance and unreasonableness -- and in both cases, it's the cable giant that has a monopoly on both.

When you pay $30 per month for a security system, you sort of expect to get a working security system. At least, most people would. Not in Comcastlandia, the strange world ruled by the corporate policies of Comcast. A Houston family started alarm service in 2007, and then learned from experience that their alarm system wasn’t working. And hadn’t in the entire seven years that they had been paying for service.

The customers uncovered this seven-year gap in coverage after finding their back door open after returning home. However, the alarm hadn't been triggered. After bringing the issue to Comcast's attention, the company discovered the alarm had been offline for more than a half-decade. Rather than express any genuine concern about this lapse, Comcast's first move was to blame the customer for paying for a service that didn't exist.

Comcast countered that the seven years of non-service weren’t their fault, since the user agreement says that customers are supposed to test their systems monthly. If the system is offline and the customer hasn’t tested it, that makes everything the customer’s fault.

In total, the customer had paid more than $2100 for nothing at all. Comcast's counteroffer? A $20 credit. Once the local TV station got involved, Comcast changed course and offered a full refund.

An 88-year-old woman in Florida is on a fixed income, but enjoys watching telenovelas, so she dutifully paid her $29 Comcast cable bill every month. There was one small problem with that, though: Comcast wasn’t providing her with any cable service. The condominium building where she lives provides cable to all residents, through a different company that is not Comcast.

The building switched providers from Comcast to Charter back in 2000. Yes, that’s right: she’s been paying for cable service that she didn’t get for more than 13 years.

Once again, Comcast reacted to this news in the Comcastian of fashions. Total intake over 13 years of non-service? $4,500. Refund amount offered? $174.

Now, for those still insisting no harm will be done by the Comcast-Time Warner merger, just think about how many more opportunities Comcast will have to collect money for doing even more than its usual nothing. A company with a horrendous customer service record shouldn't be rewarded with a doubling of its customer base. Of course, Time Warner isn't that much of an improvement, and it's been clear for years that both cable companies have long passed the Too Big To Care threshold. Combining these forces into a singular bastion of ineptitude and antipathy towards the public simply subtracts one company from the pool of "Worst Company in America" contestants.

from the we-want-to-know dept

For providers of online apps and services, great success equals great responsibility. As users come to rely on something, the consequences of it failing become dire, and the importance of maintenance and performance monitoring grows.

So Techdirt and our sponsor New Relic have a question for all the developers, entrepreneurs, technicians and others out there: how do you tackle this challenge? Not only does a growing user base make it more important to closely track the performance of a web app, it makes it more difficult too. How do you make sure your service is running smoothly? How do you identify major failures or performance issues as they happen? What are the biggest challenges therein, and what tools do you use to overcome them? We're also interested in any feedback you have on New Relic's own performance monitoring tools.

In exchange for your insights, we're offering some perks. Firstly, anyone who signs up for New Relic and installs the service will receive a free Nerd Life t-shirt. The basic account is free and comes with a 14 day trial of the pro service, and there's no commitment or credit card required.

from the or:-how-to-build-an-intellectual-cage dept

Here are two words that have no business hanging out together: "used MP3s." If you know anything about how computers work, that concept is intellectually offensive. Same goes for "ebook lending", "digital rental" and a host of other terms that have emerged from the content industries' desperate scramble to do the impossible: adapt without changing.

These concepts are all completely imaginary, and yet we treat them as if they are real, and have serious discussions about every last detail of how they function — like a debate about the best mutant superpower, but with multimillion dollar lawsuits. Copyright necessitates that we all pretend we don't know any better. It makes us act stupid.

Take "used MP3s" for example. The idea is instantly nonsensical, and proposing it seems on par with asking how all those people fit inside the television. A "used MP3" is indistinguishable from a "new" one, and on the internet there's no such thing as an individual, discrete copy of an MP3 that gets "moved" from one person to another anyway. Speaking even more broadly, a "file" is not a "thing" at all — it's a concept that we use to help organize and visualize the even more abstract concept of "information" in many different places and states, whether magnetically inscribed on a hard disk platter or being transmitted via radio waves (not to mention the internal operation of a computer, where pieces of the information are shunted around between multiple different components and caches).

A "file" is an analogy, and like all analogies, it's incomplete. It breaks down when taken too far, and then it must be discarded, because analogies only exist for our convenience. "Moving" a file is also an analogy — in reality, we are copying it and then deleting the original. Even deleting a file is usually an analogy — the data is still recoverable, the computer has just been instructed to pretend it's not there anymore.

The purpose of these analogies is not to impose limitations on reality. We don't give up the ability to copy a file because we simulated the ability to move it. We don't have to pretend information degrades like physical objects just because we chose to conceptualize it that way. If we want to describe something as "the size of 10 football fields", we don't demand there be gridiron lines painted on it. There's a reason that stubbornly sticking with analogies is referred to as torture, and every discussion about "used files" or the difference between moving and copying is another turn of the screw.

Because of copyright, we are constantly asked to pretend that these analogies are binding. When we "lend" a Kindle ebook, we must pretend that we gave a thing away and don't have it for a while, when in fact our device is just refusing to let us access it. When a library wants to lend out ebooks, they must pretend they have a "limited number of copies available." When we buy software with an activation code, we must pretend that we "only bought one" and thus can only have it in one place at a time. When we rent a digital movie, we must pretend that we "have to give it back". We have to pretend we're stupid and that our devices have limitations which don't actually exist.

But here's the real kicker: the moment there might be any benefit to the consumer, the content companies toss the analogy out the window, and suddenly want to talk about reality. Thus you get things like ReDigi, the would-be used MP3 market that recently lost in court. ReDigi attempted to make MP3s simulate discrete items by enforcing the analogy of "moving a file" using a monitoring system, such that when you sold an MP3 to someone, it would make sure you deleted your own copy. Though we always suspected it was doomed, it was at least rather fascinating from a legal and policy perspective, potentially creating a clash between copyright and first sale rights. After all, if we are expected to treat digital files like physical property, we should at least be getting the rights that come with that.

But this time the record labels wanted to focus on the fact that there's no such thing as moving a file, and pointed out that ReDigi involved making copies whether or not it also involved deleting other copies — and the judge agreed. This is actually correct, technically and realistically — just don't tell them that next time, when it doesn't benefit them and they're back to calling infringement theft. As if to underline their masterful doublethink when it comes to the nature of property, the labels are all about having their cake and eating it too.

ReDigi is hardly the only example. We've written before about the insane situation with TV and movie streaming, where companies do things like set up a warehouse full of separate DVD players that stream from individual discs, or install a separate TV antenna on the same rooftop for every customer who wants an online stream. They are forced to willfully ignore technological capabilities, engineering principles and simple common sense just to conform to all these broken analogies — and they still face massive opposition from content owners and broadcasters every step of the way.

The real issue, when you get down to it, is that copyright itself is imaginary. A "song" or a "novel" is just as analogical as a "file". Originally, copyright law was very concerned with separating the expression of an idea from the idea itself, and in theory that's still the case, but in practice the line has proven almost impossible to draw. So first we conceptualize an abstract thing like "content" as discrete pieces, then we conceptualize all the abstract rights associated with those pieces, and then we conceptualize the discrete units of distribution and ownership within those rights.

These are all imaginary concepts, built on top of other imaginary concepts, built on top of still more imaginary concepts. It's turtles all the way down.

This does not necessarily mean that there's no place for copyright in the world. But in order for it to function, we have to remember that it's an analogy — it's something chosen and used to achieve a purpose, not something that binds and shapes reality, or that we must conform to at the expense of our better judgement. Originally, copyright was just that: a choice by society to employ the analogies of ownership and property in limited, specially-tailored ways in order to achieve a desired result — a flourishing intellectual and artistic economy. Today, copyright is worlds away from what it was then, and it does more to hinder that goal than help it... but many people seem to have forgotten that it's a just a tool, and we can always put it down.

In all the discussion about the various reasons people give for violating copyright, I think there's one that goes unmentioned: a lot of people just refuse to pretend to be stupid.

from the we've-got-it-all-wrong dept

Even though I was never a big Google Reader user, its death has got me thinking about online services quite a bit lately -- and really reminded me that we've done the cloud wrong. Rather than build true cloud computing, we've built a bunch of lockboxes.

The cloud was supposed to free us, not lock us in

"Cloud computing" went by a variety of other terms in the past before this marketing term stuck, but the key part of it was that it was supposed to free us of worrying about the location of our data. Rather than having to have things stored locally, the data could be anywhere, and we could access it via any machine or device. That sort of happened, and there definitely are benefits to data being stored in the cloud, rather than locally. But... what came with today's "cloud" was a totally different kind of lock: a lock to the service.

I can point many apps to data stored locally

I wrote something related to this a few years ago, concerning music in the cloud. If I have a bunch of MP3s stored locally, I can point any number of music apps at my music folder, and they can all play that music. As long as the data is not in a proprietary format, I can find the app that works best for me and the data is separate from the app. Even when you have proprietary formats like Microsoft's .doc, other apps can often make use of them as well -- so, for example, I can get by with Libre Office, and I don't lose access to all of my old Microsoft Word docs.

This is really useful, because it helps us avoid vendor lock-in in many cases. Even when, say, Microsoft or Apple dominates the market. It's still possible to come in and be compatible. The competition then focuses on building better services, rather than reinventing the data model. That's much more useful to consumers, because the innovation is focused on making their lives better, rather than reinventing the wheel.

Today's cloud brings us back to walled gardens

For the most part, today, however, "cloud" applications bundle the storage and the service as one, and the two are linked inseparably. You check your data into a new cloud service, but the application layer and the data are both held by the same company. Yes, you can often transfer data from one service to the other -- such as Google's "data liberation front" effort, which is fantastic (and goes beyond many other companies' efforts), but just the fact that data needs to be liberated suggests we're taking the wrong approach altogether. Rather than having to "export" all of your feeds from Google Reader and then waiting patiently for 50,000 other people who are trying to upload them to the few small Reader competitors out there, why shouldn't we have each had an OPML file stored somewhere that we control, and that we could easily point any reader application, whether its local or "in the cloud." And, yes, there are some services that attempt to do this, but it's not where the whole "cloud" space has gone.

Separate and liberate the data from the infrastructure

What the cloud should be about is both freeing us from being locked to local data, and also freeing us from having that data locked to a particular service. I should be able to keep my data in one spot and then access it via a variety of cloud clients -- and the clients and the data shouldn't necessarily be directly connected or held by the same party. If I don't want to listen to my music via one app, I can just connect a different app to my personal data cloud and off we go. If Google Reader shuts down, no problem, just point a different app at my RSS data. No extraction, no uploading. Just go.

There are, of course, plenty of players around which sort of do this. DropBox, Box, Amazon's S3 and even Google Drive are setting themselves up as personal data clouds, and there are a growing number of apps that run across them. Projects like the Locker Project are thinking about how we store personal data separated from apps as well. And I know there are a bunch of other projects either around today or quickly approaching release, that also seek to do something in this space.

But, for the most part, all of the stories that people talk about concerning "cloud" computing almost always involve services that tie together the app and the data and all you're really doing is trading the former limitations of local data for the limitations of a single service provider controlling your data. Many service providers want this, of course. It's a form of lock-in. Plus, having some sort of access to your data and your usage can enable them to do other things, such as more accurately data mine you and your usage.

But, as users, we really should be pushing more towards embracing the apps that separate the app from the data and that let you point their "cloud" app at any particular place you store your "cloud" data. Some of this may involve standardizing certain data formats, but that makes sense anyway, as, once again, that's an area where there are tremendous benefits to not reinventing the wheel, so that the innovation and competition can focus on the service level. While some vendors may fear losing lock-in, if they truly believe in their own ability to provide great services, it shouldn't be a problem. At the same time, they should also realize that embracing this kind of world means that it's easier for others to jump in and test their services as well.

The death of Google Reader raised a lot of issues around trust, and while you could "export" the data, that process is still messy and archaic when you think about it. The future of cloud computing should be much more focused on separating the data from the service. That would remove the fear that many are now talking about concerning adopting new cloud services that might not last very long. If the data is stored elsewhere, and entirely in the control of the user, then you don't need to trust the service provider nearly as much, but can dip in and test out different apps operating on the same data, and switch with ease.

If we're going to see the real promise of "the cloud" take place, that's where things need to head. We should be increasingly skeptical of "cloud" apps that also control the data.

from the for-the-encouragement-of-lying dept

There are plenty of stories about children under the age of 13 having to lie (often with the assistance of their parents) to get on Facebook. This is due to the ridiculous COPPA law that the FTC supports strongly, despite it doing close to nothing to actually "protect children." But what's the excuse for people lying at the other end of the scale? A 104 years old woman is forced to be perpetually 99 years old because Facebook apparently refuses ages higher than that. It makes you wonder if they just never thought someone with three digits in their age would use the service and only set up the database to handle two digits. Oddly, rather than defaulting down to 99 years old when Marguerite Joseph tried to enter her birth year of 1908, the system automatically took 20 years off her life and said she was born in 1928. Either way, just as parents are helping children lie about their age at the youth end of the spectrum, in this case, it's Marguerite's granddaughter who's the accomplice here, since Marguerite is legally blind, but still likes to keep in touch with people via Facebook.

from the the-challenge-is-(still)-on dept

Nearly seven years ago, I wrote about the idea that there was a "battle to own the internet," and that if Google really wanted to succeed, it had to move away from just being a product company to being a true platform company that had a much more open setup, which did much more to encourage developers to build on top of it. Over the years, occasionally I've repeated that point. And while Google has done a few things at the margin, it still has always seemed to resist becoming a true platform. There are, certainly, some folks inside Google who get this, and I seem to hear from a bunch of them any time I bring this up. But the company has a history of having trouble really opening up to outside developers.

Some have been reading it as an insider's "attack" on Google, but I don't see that at all. It seems like a call to action from someone who thinks the company is missing the boat on being a platform. Yegge spends a lot of time talking (very openly) about his prior experience working at Amazon, and about how Jeff Bezos got the "we need to be a platform" religion big time nearly a decade ago, and effectively forced the entire company to focus on that as job number one. While Yegge criticizes many problems with Amazon, he does recognize that such a vision has put Amazon in a good position (along with others who have clearly embraced being "the" platform: Facebook, Apple and, almost by accident, Microsoft).

The key part of the post, which is what many people are focusing on, is where Yegge criticizes Google+, and how it wasn't designed as a platform, whereas its main direct competitor, Facebook, has clearly embraced being a platform in a very meaningful way.

Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo). We all don't get it. The Golden Rule of platforms is that you Eat Your Own Dogfood. The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. We had no API at all at launch, and last I checked, we had one measly API call. One of the team members marched in and told me about it when they launched, and I asked: "So is it the Stalker API?" She got all glum and said "Yeah." I mean, I was joking, but no... the only API call we offer is to get someone's stream. So I guess the joke was on me.

Microsoft has known about the Dogfood rule for at least twenty years. It's been part of their culture for a whole generation now. You don't eat People Food and give your developers Dog Food. Doing that is simply robbing your long-term platform value for short-term successes. Platforms are all about long-term thinking.

Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product. But that's not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there's something there for everyone.

Our Google+ team took a look at the aftermarket and said: "Gosh, it looks like we need some games. Let's go contract someone to, um, write some games for us." Do you begin to see how incredibly wrong that thinking is now? The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them.

This part rings incredibly true. I know that when Google+ launched, I liked it as a program, but asked people about APIs, because it needed to better integrate into my workflow -- and was told that that would be coming "sometime later." And while I still mess around with Goolge+, it's largely become an afterthought to me, because it just lives off in its own separate world, rather than integrating well. There are still features I like, but until developers have a chance to dive in and make it useful... it just doesn't feel like a necessity.

But there's a bigger lesson in this, beyond Google's continued platform-itis. And it goes back to the issue of cargo cult copying -- a topic I've discussed a number of times. People seem to think it's easy for companies (especially big companies) to "copy" products of their competitors. In fact, with Google, many people think it's so easy that there are antitrust investigations going on. But Google+ and the points that Yegge raise remind us, yet again, that while copying the basic "features" of a product may be possible, really recreating what makes it tick and what makes it successful is difficult.

It's easy to copy the superficial. It's difficult to copy the soul.

With Google+, the company built a really nice copy (with some clear improvements) of Facebook, the product -- which is the superficial, public-facing part. But it completely missed the boat on Facebook, the platform -- which is the real soul of what makes Facebook such a powerhouse. Google certainly can get there. And, in the back of my mind, I'd always assumed that was exactly the path they were on. But remembering that post from 2004, and the lack of any sustained, involved effort within and across Google to be a platform, combined with this post from Yegge, again makes me wonder if Google just doesn't recognize the importance of being a platform.

I've argued in the past that one big achilles heel for Google is its awful reputation when it comes to customer service, but it's lack of deeply ingrained platform-focused thinking may represent a much bigger threat.

from the lessons-from-the-front dept

About a decade ago, I wrote a long analysis of why digital "goods" were really a "service," not a "product," and explained how this was the key to understanding modern business models. I had submitted it to a large publication, who came back and told me that my reasoning made no sense at all and they refused to publish it. It may be true that my reasoning doesn't make much sense, but it's nice to see that others are coming to the same conclusion. Hypebot has a nice post from singer/songwriter Jeff Macdougall explaining how music must be viewed as a service, rather than a product, if those in the music industry want to successfully adapt to the changing market:

When a label executive tells you that they are "not in the business of selling discs", (or vinyl, tape, t-shirts, etc.) and that they are actually "selling music," they are, at best, fooling themselves, or at worst, lying to your face. Moving plastic, vinyl, paper and/or any other tangible good they can dream up is exactly what the recording industry has been about since it was established.

Sure, the labels spend money and time trying to infuse their products (CDs, posters, etc.) with content (music, album art, etc.) to raise its intrinsic value, but it's still the CD or poster that they are/were selling... not the music itself.

He goes on to note that music is really an experience, and people should stop focusing on copyright law or the idea that file sharing is "stealing," and focus on the overall experience and building models based on that.

Of course, he doesn't quite get into the difference between a service and a product -- and it's one area that people sometimes get confused about, so one way to simplify it is to think of it like this: a product is a single thing created in the past that you now own. A service is paying for something to happen in the future. It's not a perfect explanation, but in my experience, this simple distinction often gets people thinking creatively about how to turn a business model into one focused on selling a service, rather than a product.

from the too-bad dept

Southwest Airlines is the sort of airline that seems to get a "love it" or "hate it," review from folks. The funky boarding process and the general no frills attitude of the airline work for some, but not for others. Personally, I like Southwest for short haul flights, don't mind the boarding process and especially like the fact that it's retrofitted many of its gates with comfy chairs that have outlets and USB chargers at many seats. I've also found that on about 10% of my Southwest flights, there will be a very, very funny flight attendant who entertains the entire plane (a few weeks ago, the flight attendant on my flight got loud applause for his somewhat hilarious safety warning message that included, among other things an "intermission" where he sang the "let's all go to the snack bar" song).

So it's a bit disappointing that the airline has apparently decided to take an unfriendly approach to folks who want to use third party products to track their travel and manage their frequent flyer points. TripIt is an increasingly popular service (I have an account, but have never actually used it) that many people have been using these days, but one of our readers passes along an email that TripIt recently sent out to users:

"Hello,

We're sorry to let you know that Southwest Airlines has asked TripIt and several other online travel companies to stop tracking points for members of their Rapid Rewards program. Effective immediately, TripIt Pro has discontinued point tracker support for Southwest Airlines Rapid Rewards. Your program history and balance will be available until December 31, 2010 on the TripIt website and mobile applications.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and we appreciate your understanding. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Thanks,

TripIt

This seems really unfortunate. An airline like Southwest that has a funky passenger-friendly view of things should be encouraging apps that make it easier and more enjoyable to fly Southwest and to use its Rapid Rewards system. It's too bad that they're trying to shut out those third parties.